Because a ruling in Gamble's favor can potentially be used in an argument protect the President and many in the GOP from "double jeopardy" on various State charges if Federal charges can't stick after the house of cards they built up around their dirty dealings finally fall down around them...
The merits of the case being argued is whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to a possible double jeopardy clause under the 5th Amendment in which a convicted felon was originally charged by the State of Alabama for illegally owning a firearm and serving the maximum 1 year (because 2nd Amendment or something like that) for that offence should subsequently be charged and serve additional time (a minimum 10 years) for the very same crime by Federal authorities.
The ACLU, the CATO institute, and Mitch McConnell are filing amicus briefs in this case. And I'm pretty sure the ruling will end up narrowly being in Gamble's favor, as the Federal charges pretty obviously were made to augment the State's punishment.
How are those four Conservative "Law and Order" types going to deal with this issue, allowing a felon to "cheat" his "rightful" punishment because they have to protect the butt of the Criminal POS that currently sits in the big chair in the Oval Office. Normally, this would be a slam dunk for them. Screw the worthless criminal. But now...?
Now, mind you, if in the GOP's cluster f'K of money laundering and foreign conspiracies, the Federal charges are sufficiently different than the State charges, as in the States making charges are focused on what is occurring in their particular jurisdictions as opposed to a blanket indictment, then there should be no Double Jeopardy - especially if Ginsburg is the one writing the ruling rather than Alito or Roberts.
I'm hoping Mueller has considered this legal tactic to nullify charges as he's handing information over to the various States AGs.
Haele
= new reply since forum marked as read